聞分館君 Ask BunKanKun

困知記

5 min read

Text ID
KR3a0084
Date
1528–1531
Dynasty
明

Kùnzhī jì 困知記

Records from the Difficulty of Knowing by 羅欽順 (Luó Qīnshùn, zì Yǔnshēng 允升, hào Zhěngān 整菴, posthumously Wénzhuāng 文莊, 1465–1547, 明)

(Note: the catalog meta gives the title as 因知記 and the author as 羅欽訓 — both are typographical slips: 因 for 困, and 訓 for 順. The correct title 困知記 and author 羅欽順 are preserved in the SKQS WYG source itself; both forms are flagged in the 羅欽順 person note.)

About the work

A two-juan philosophical yǔlù by Luó Qīnshùn — the principal Mid-Míng ZhūXī defender against Wáng Yángmíng’s xīnxué — together with a xù jì (continued record) of two further juan and a one-juan fùlù (appendix) of six discussion-letters. The title Kùnzhī derives from the Lúnyǔ’s “kùn ér xué zhī” (learning through difficulty) — Luó’s self-account of his philosophical biography (recorded in the prefaces) traces him from a youthful Buddhist-Chán phase to an awakening, then to a sustained period of Lǐxué meditation that eventually produced the work.

Composition is precisely datable: the qián jì (front record) of 156 zhāng completed Jiājìng wùzǐ (1528); the xù jì of 113 zhāng completed Jiājìng xīnmǎo (1531). The fùlù of six discussion-letters preserves Luó’s exchange with Wáng Yángmíng on the foundational metaphysical questions: xīn (heart-mind), xìng (nature), lǐ (principle), qì (vital force) and the structure of cognition (zhī). Luó’s distinctive doctrinal position — that lǐ is not separable from qì (i.e. not transcendent), and so qì monism — places him as a transitional figure between ZhūXī orthodoxy and the late-Míng / early-Qīng qì-philosophy of Wáng Fūzhī and others.

Tiyao

We respectfully submit that the Kùnzhī jì in 2 juan with xù lù in 2 juan and fùlù in 1 juan was composed by Luó Qīnshùn of the Míng. Qīnshùn, zì Yǔnshēng, hào Zhěngān, was a man of Tàihé. Top-three (tànhuā) in Hóngzhì guǐchǒu (1493); rose to Nánjīng Lìbù shàngshū; granted posthumous Tàizǐ tàibǎo; titled Wénzhuāng. His career is in the Míng shǐ Rúlín zhuàn.

Qīnshùn was deeply versed in lǐxué, gaining understanding of the subtle bearing of xìngmìng lǐqì. In his late years he wrote this book to expound it. The qián jì completed in Jiājìng wùzǐ (1528), in 156 zhāng; the xù jì completed in Jiājìng xīnmǎo (1531), in 113 zhāng; the fùlù in 1 juan, all letters discussing learning with others — 6 in all.

Qīnshùn says of himself: “I early held office at the capital. With an old monk discussed Buddhism. Carelessly I cited Chán sayings as reply, thinking he must have something to say; I therefore concentrated my thought through the night and was suddenly enlightened. Soon after, holding office at Nányōng, I took the writings of the sages and worthies and immersed myself a long time. Gradually I came to recognise jiù shí (settled fact) and finally knew that what I had attained was only this xīn xūlíng zhī miào (the marvel of empty-spirit-mind), not the xìng zhī lǐ (principle of nature). From this onward, yán mó tǐ rèn (grinding and embodying), accumulating decades [until I made this book].”

[Tíyào continues; abbreviated.]

Respectfully revised and submitted, [date].

General Compilers: Jǐ Yún 紀昀, Lù Xīxióng 陸錫熊, Sūn Shìyì 孫士毅.

Abstract

The Kùnzhī jì is the principal Mid-Míng Zhū-Xī-loyalist work and one of the most philosophically substantial texts of the Mid-Míng. Composition window: precisely datable. The qián jì completed in 1528, the xù jì in 1531; the fùlù discussion-letters are dated within this range. The frontmatter brackets to 1528–1531.

The substantive position has two prongs: (i) doctrinal exposition of Luó’s qì monism, in which lǐ is the “tiáo lǐ” (ordering pattern) of qì rather than a separate transcendent principle — anticipating the late-Míng / early-Qīng qì-philosophy of Wáng Fūzhī; (ii) explicit polemical refutation of Wáng Yángmíng’s xīnxué, especially as preserved in the fùlù exchange-letters. Within the SKQS Rújiā the work occupies the role of the Mid-Míng Lǐxué-loyalist response to the Yángmíng turn.

The transmission is clean. The work has had substantial East Asian reception — Korean Sǒngnihak read it as a Mid-Míng resource for anti-Yáng-míng ZhūXī defence; Japanese Shushigaku similarly. Within twentieth-century Chinese intellectual history, Luó has been substantially elevated by the qì-philosophy revisionism of Hóu Wàilú, Hóu Wàilú’s school, and Mou Tsung-san.

The bibliographic record: Míng shǐ yìwén zhì; Wényuāngé shūmù; SKQS Zǐbù — Rújiā lèi. Modern critical text: Wāng Lǎnfēng 汪闌芳, Kùnzhī jì jiào shì 困知記校釋 (Zhōnghuá Shūjú, 1990).

Translations and research

  • Irene Bloom, Knowledge Painfully Acquired: The K’un-chih chi by Lo Ch’in-shun, Columbia University Press, 1987. The standard complete English translation, with extensive critical apparatus and the major Western critical study.
  • Mou Tsung-san 牟宗三, Cóng Lù Xiàng-shān dào Liú Jǐ-shān 從陸象山到劉蕺山, 1979 — major Chinese-language treatment of Luó in the Lǐxué-historical line.
  • Hóu Wàilú 侯外廬 et al., Sòng-Míng Lǐ-xué shǐ — substantial chapter on Luó.
  • Wáng Yáng-míng’s Chuán xí lù 傳習錄 contains parallel materials to the fù-lù discussion-letters.

Other points of interest

Luó Qīnshùn’s qì monism — the position that lǐ is the inner-pattern of qì not separable from it — anticipates by a century Wáng Fūzhī’s foundational early-Qīng qì-philosophy. The Mid-Míng intellectual history of Lǐxué / xīnxué / qì-monism is methodologically tripartite, with Luó as the qì pole.

The fùlù discussion-letters with Wáng Yángmíng are among the most substantive Mid-Míng philosophical exchanges, comparable to the ZhūLù Éhú meeting (1175) in their bearing on the foundational metaphysical disagreement.

Graph View

Backlinks